How Turkish verbs express time, aspect, mood and evidence

The structure, meaning and history of Turkish verb endings

For readers in a hurry: Turkish verbs can tell us when something happened and how the event unfolded. They can also show whether the speaker is making a prediction or describing information learned indirectly. Turkish expresses many of these meanings through endings attached to a verb. These endings follow an order, often forming two grammatical layers. The layers account for the differences between geliyordu (was coming), gelmişti (had come) and geliyormuş (apparently is coming). Linguists study these meanings under tense, aspect, mood and evidentiality. The system has developed over centuries, and other languages divide the same meanings differently. English uses several separate words where Turkish often uses suffixes.

A Turkish verb contains several kinds of information

Someone describing an interrupted journey might say Geliyordum, meaning “I was coming.”

The English translation uses three words. Turkish expresses the same basic information through one verb, gel-iyor-du-m. Each part contributes something to the meaning.

Part	What it does	Meaning
gel-	Names the action	come
-iyor	Shows the action in progress	ongoing action
-du	Places the situation in the past	past reference
-m	Identifies the speaker	first-person singular

The ending -iyor lets us look at the action while it is happening. The next ending, -du, places that ongoing situation in the past. The final -m tells us who was coming.

Linguists call a grammatical ending attached to a word a suffix. Turkish can combine several suffixes in one word, but they follow a particular order.

Changing a suffix can change the meaning of the whole verb. Geliyor means “is coming.” Geliyordu means “was coming.” Geliyormuş can mean “apparently is coming.”

Geliyor describes an ongoing action, geliyordu places that action in the past, and geliyormuş indicates that the speaker learned about it indirectly.

Linguists study these differences through four related concepts: tense, aspect, mood and evidentiality. The first three are often abbreviated as TAM. When evidentiality is included, the abbreviation becomes TAME.

English makes these distinctions too, often with separate words.

Four ways of describing an event

1

Tense: when it happens

Places an event in time. English: I arrive / I arrived. Turkish: gel-di “came”,

gel-ecek 

“will come”.

2

Aspect: how it unfolds

Shows an event as ongoing or as a whole. English: I was reading. 

Turkish:

gel-iyor-du 

“was coming”.

3

Evidentiality: how you know

Shows the source of the information. English: Apparently, she left. Turkish:

gelmiş 

“apparently came”.

4

Mood: possible or necessary

Shows whether the speaker sees the event as possible or required. English: She might leave. Turkish:

gel-meli 

“should come”.

1

2

3

4

Tense usually places an event in relation to the moment of speaking. Turkish has suffixes for past and future reference, but their traditional names do not always tell us everything about how they work.

Aspect concerns how a speaker views the internal course of an event. I was reading is progressive: the activity is still in progress. A related category, the perfect, connects an earlier event to a later point in time, as in I have finished. Turkish has comparable meanings, though the boundaries do not always match those of English.

Modality covers meanings of possibility and obligation. Mood is the name for the grammatical forms that carry them. Besides necessity (-mAlI), Turkish endings can express conditions and wishes.

Evidentiality is the grammatical expression of an information source. English uses separate words such as apparently. Turkish can use a suffix, especially -mIş.

These four categories can work together. A Turkish verb may describe an event in progress while also showing that the speaker learned about it indirectly: geliyormuş, “apparently is coming.”

The two layers of the Turkish verb

Turkish verb endings follow an order. This is why geliyordu is a regular Turkish form, while some other combinations of familiar endings are impossible.

A simplified pattern is:

Verb stem → voice → ability or negation → first TAM layer → copula layer → person

The stem is the basic part that identifies the action, such as gel- in geliyordum.

Before the main time-related ending, Turkish can add material that changes how the action is presented. Voice shows who does what to whom:

Voice	Example	Meaning
Active	yaz-dı	wrote
Passive	yaz-ıl-dı	was written
Causative	yaz-dır-dı	had it written
Reflexive	yıka-n-dı	washed (oneself)
Reciprocal	gör-üş-tü	met each other

Voice is not part of TAM. It changes who takes part in the event, which is why its suffixes sit closest to the stem.

Other endings can express ability or negation: yaz-a-ma-dı “could not write”.

Think of the first TAM layer as a single slot after the verb. It holds one ending, and only one: yaz-ıyor “is writing,” yaz-dı “wrote,” yaz-acak “will write,” yaz-mış “apparently wrote.” These endings compete for the same place, so two of them cannot stand side by side.

In suffix notation, these endings are -(I)yor, -DI, -(y)AcAk and -mIş. Capital letters stand for sounds that change with vowel harmony: I can be ı, i, u or ü, and A can be a or e.

The second slot comes after the first. It is built on the Turkish copula, the element that does the work of English to be. Turkish speakers know it as ek-fiil. With a noun or adjective, it simply means “is” or “was”: hasta-yım “I am ill,” hasta-ydı “he/she was ill.” After a verb that already has a TAM ending, it adds a second frame: yaz-ıyor-du “was writing.”

The copular endings are -(y)DI, -(y)mIş and -(y)sA.

Form	How it is built	Meaning
geliyordum	gel-iyor-du-m	I was coming
gelmişmiş	gel-miş-miş	Reportedly had come
hastaymış	hasta-ymış	Apparently was/is ill
gelebilirse	gel-ebil-ir-se	If he/she can come
kaçmamalıdır	kaç-ma-malı-dır	He/she must not escape

In geliyordum, -iyor presents the action as ongoing. The following -du places it in a past setting.

Now consider hastaydı, meaning “was ill.” The same past copular element appears after an adjective. Turkish can use this second grammatical layer with descriptions as well as verbs.

The same pattern appears in hastaymış and geliyormuş. Both contain the evidential copular ending -(y)mIş.

Why some endings cannot follow each other

Turkish allows gel-iyor (“is coming”) and gel-ecek (“will come”).

However, the combination *gel-iyor-acak is ungrammatical. The progressive -iyor and future -acak belong to the same first TAM position. They cannot simply be placed one after the other.

Turkish can express the intended meaning by introducing the auxiliary verb ol-. An auxiliary is a verb that helps build another grammatical construction.

gel-iyor ol-acak  “He/she will be coming.”

The auxiliary provides another position for the future ending.

Some endings can combine because they occupy different positions. Others need an additional verb.

Ketrez (2012) also describes how personal endings vary according to the preceding grammatical form. The two-layer pattern is a useful starting point, although the full system contains further details.

What the main Turkish verb endings express

Turkish school grammar traditionally divides verb forms into haber kipleri and dilek kipleri. These are the familiar groups used for statements and forms associated with wishes or conditions.

The names help identify endings. Their actual uses are sometimes broader than the names suggest.

Suffix	Traditional name	What it does	What it feels like in use	Scholarly note
-DI	Görülen geçmiş zaman	Places an event in the past	Presents a past event as a whole	Whether it marks direct evidence is disputed
-mIş	Duyulan geçmiş zaman	Connects an earlier event with a later viewpoint or indirect information	Often suggests something learned or inferred	Scholars disagree over whether aspect or evidentiality is primary
-(I)yor	Şimdiki zaman	Presents an activity as ongoing; can also describe habits	An action in progress or a regular activity	Wider use than English present progressive
-(A/I)r	Geniş zaman	Expresses habits, general statements and modal meanings	Something generally true, expected or undertaken	The aorist differs from English simple present; negative -mAz
-(y)AcAk	Gelecek zaman	Refers to the future or a prospective event	Something expected to happen	Also has modal interpretations
-mAktA	Şimdiki zaman	Presents an activity as ongoing	A progressive description in formal usage	More restricted in register than -(I)yor
-mAlI	Gereklilik kipi	Expresses necessity	Something required or inferred	Can express obligation or an inference
-sA	Dilek-şart kipi	Expresses conditions or wishes	An event considered under a condition	Context determines the reading
-(y)A	İstek kipi	Expresses wishes or proposals	Something the speaker wishes or proposes	Especially recognisable in first-person forms

Why geniş zaman is difficult to translate

English learners often meet geniş zaman as the Turkish equivalent of the simple present. That comparison works in some contexts, but it can lead to mistakes.

Consider:

Her sabah 5 km koşuyorum. “I run five kilometres every morning.”

The sentence describes a regular habit. Turkish uses -(I)yor, the ending commonly taught as the present progressive.

Now compare:

Yardım ederim. “I'll help.”

Here, the aorist expresses a commitment concerning the future.

The endings are:

koş-uyor-um = run + progressive + first-person singular

ed-er-im = do + aorist + first-person singular

The aorist is the linguistic name commonly used for Turkish geniş zaman. It covers general statements and habitual situations, but its functions extend beyond them.

Enmutlu (1984) describes the aorist as a form that can express statements without tying them to one particular moment. Johanson (2021) also describes its broad generalizing and modal uses.

Kanık (2015) draws attention to future-oriented uses of the aorist in spoken Turkish.

English simple present and Turkish geniş zaman therefore cover overlapping areas. Their uses are distributed differently.

Future, necessity and wishes

The future ending -(y)AcAk commonly places an event after the moment of speaking.

A future statement may also involve a prediction or expectation. This is why scholars have analysed -(y)AcAk through more than one grammatical category.

Gülmez (2013) discusses these competing analyses, including accounts that treat the form through tense or prospective aspect, a way of viewing an event as still ahead.

The necessity ending -mAlI also has more than one use. It can express an obligation, or it can indicate a conclusion that the speaker considers necessary.

Linguists distinguish deontic modality, concerning obligation, from epistemic modality, concerning what the speaker concludes or considers likely.

English must has the same two meanings.

The conditional -sA and optative -(y)A belong to this wider area of meaning. Their exact interpretation depends on the sentence in which they appear.

Evidentiality: how the speaker knows

Turkish learners usually encounter evidentiality through two past forms:

Gel-di. “He/she came.”

Gel-miş. “He/she apparently came” or “I hear he/she came.”

The second form can present an event as something learned from another person. It can also describe a conclusion based on evidence.

In my lessons, the first person is the hardest.

Aa, uyumuşum! "Oh, I fell asleep!"

Aa, anahtarımı düşürmüşüm! "Oh, I dropped my keys!"

Students often ask me, "Did you hear it from someone?" No. I did it myself, but I was not aware of it at the time. I only noticed afterwards. This first-person use belongs to the discovery readings discussed below. Students can learn the rule quickly. Using it naturally takes much longer, even when they know the theory well.

The distinction is familiar to Turkish speakers, but linguists disagree about exactly what the endings mean.

Is -DI a witnessed past?

Traditional grammar calls -DI the görülen geçmiş zaman, literally the “seen past tense.”

The name suggests that the speaker witnessed the event. Scholars disagree about whether the ending itself requires firsthand evidence.

Şener (2011) analyses -DI as expressing direct evidence together with past-time and aspectual meaning. Friedman supports a direct-versus-indirect analysis, as discussed by Üzüm (2023).

Johanson takes a different position. He argues that -DI leaves the source of information unspecified. In his account, the form does not require the speaker to have witnessed the event.

Meriçli also treats the association with direct evidence as something that can arise through comparison with -mIş. Directness is not obligatory in that analysis.

The traditional name remains useful for recognising the form. Its literal interpretation is still debated.

What does -mIş mean?

The ending -mIş is commonly associated with reported information. It can also describe an earlier event from a later point of view.

The difference is visible in gelmiş and geliyormuş. Both contain -mIş, but the endings occupy different positions in the verb.

In gelmiş, the suffix belongs to the first TAM layer. In geliyormuş, it follows the progressive form as part of the copular layer.

For the linguistically curious: Aspect and evidentiality in -mIş Lars Johanson starts with the relationship between an event and a later viewpoint. In his analysis, -mIş presents a situation from after its relevant endpoint. He calls this postterminal aspect. This analysis gives priority to aspect, while allowing indirect-information readings. Şener places greater emphasis on evidentiality. The disagreement concerns which meaning is basic to the form. A further distinction separates verbal -mIş, as in gelmiş, from copular -(y)mIş, as in geliyormuş. Göksel and Kerslake discuss the copular form's more specifically evidential function, as reported by Kappler and Tsiplakou (2018). Csató's account, summarised by Üzüm (2023), makes a related distinction.

Surprise and newly discovered information

The ending -mIş can also appear when someone discovers something they did not previously know.

Consider this example from the research literature:

Kızınız çok güzel piyano çalıyormuş. “Your daughter plays the piano very well. I hadn't realised.”

The speaker may have just heard the daughter play. The information is available through direct experience, but it is new to the speaker.

The suffix -DIr also appears in discussions of inference. It can express a general statement or a conclusion, but it has a different grammatical history from copular -(y)mIş.

Aksu-Koç (2016) argues that evidentiality and inferential modality should be treated as separate categories in Turkish.

For the linguistically curious: Is surprise a grammatical category? Linguists use mirativity for grammatical meanings associated with unexpected discovery or surprise. The piano example illustrates why this idea has attracted attention in Turkish. The status of mirativity remains disputed. Hill (2012) argues against treating it as a separate grammatical category. DeLancey (1997) treats it as a grammatical category of its own. Ataman-Devrim, Soley and Aksu-Koç (2025) examine these readings in Turkish. Their work belongs to a wider discussion of how evidential forms can acquire meanings connected with the speaker's changing knowledge.

The mnemonic past: -DIydI

Turkish has another past form that is much less common in standard writing.

Johanson and Csató (2021) examine -DIydI as a form that presents an event through the speaker's memory. They call it a mnemonic evidential.

One example from their article is:

Ali bir mektup yazdıydı. “As I remember it, Ali wrote a letter.”

The form yaz-dı-y-dı combines a past ending with a past copular element. It presents the event as something the speaker recalls.

The article also gives:

Bunu sevdiydim. “I liked it.”

Johanson and Csató explain that this construction can refer to relatively recent events. Its use depends on recollection, so it does not simply indicate a distant past.

The construction has historical connections with Old Turkic combinations such as -DI är-di.

The modern form also survives in Anatolian dialects. Johanson and Csató identify Adana, Gaziantep, Mersin, Antalya, Konya and Ankara, citing Nurettin Demir (personal communication).

They separately cite İmdat Demir (2015) for its frequency in standard written Turkish. According to that comparison, -DIydI is far less common than -mIştI, at roughly 2% against 98%.

You will rarely hear geldiydi in everyday Istanbul Turkish. Many speakers associate it with rural or regional speech, and it is not part of the standard language.

Compound forms: how the second layer changes meaning

Compound verbal forms show the two-layer structure.

The first ending establishes how the event is viewed. A following copular ending adds another frame.

Form	How it is built	Common English meaning
geliyordu	gel-iyor-du	He/she was coming
gelmişti	gel-miş-ti	He/she had come
gelecekti	gel-ecek-ti	He/she was going to come
gelirdi	gel-ir-di	He/she used to come
gelseydi	gel-se-y-di	If he/she had come
geliyormuş	gel-iyor-muş	Apparently he/she is coming

In geliyordu, the speaker presents an event as ongoing at a past point in time.

In gelmişti, the event is understood as earlier than another past reference point. English commonly expresses this relationship with had.

In gelirdi, the aorist combines with the past copula. The result commonly describes a past habit.

In gelseydi, the conditional form receives a past-oriented frame.

The form geliyormuş adds a different kind of information. The progressive ending describes an ongoing event, while the copular -muş indicates an indirect-information reading.

These translations represent common uses. The surrounding sentence can affect the interpretation.

Traditional grammar describes compound forms using hikâye, rivayet and şart.

Efendioğlu and Solmaz (2007) argue that descriptions of compound tenses should also include constructions with ol-, such as geliyor olacak.

How other languages express the same meanings

In English, You have been drinking might be said to someone whose breath smells of alcohol or whose behaviour seems unusual. The speaker has drawn a conclusion from what they noticed, although the verb form itself does not tell us how they know. English can also use words such as apparently to express this.

Mandarin Chinese does not require tense endings on verbs. Japanese -te iru can describe an ongoing action or a state resulting from an earlier action. Spanish comía can mean "was eating" or "used to eat," while Turkish distinguishes between yiyordu and yerdi.

Bulgarian, Macedonian and Albanian have grammatical forms that can express indirect information or surprise, although they work differently from Turkish -mIş. Scholars continue to debate the role of historical language contact in these similarities (Tarpomanova, 2024).

In Turkish, suffixes allow a single verb to express several distinctions: geldi, geliyordu, gelmiş.

How Turkish verb endings developed

The endings used in modern Turkish have histories of their own. Some began as combinations involving separate verbs. Over time, these combinations became more closely attached to the main verb and developed specialised grammatical functions. Linguists call this process grammaticalisation.

The history of -(I)yor is one example. The ending developed from a construction involving the Old Turkic verb yorı-, meaning "to walk" or "to go," which is related to modern Turkish yürümek. What began as a separate verb used alongside another action gradually became the progressive ending found in geliyor and yürüyor.

The word Yörük belongs to the same historical family of words. It became associated with communities traditionally practising mobile pastoralism in Anatolia and the Balkans. Both the grammatical ending and the cultural term preserve connections to an older verb expressing movement.

Mutlu (2009) traces the development of -(I)yor through forms such as yor-ır and documents dialect forms including -yoru and -yur. Demirci and Kırmıt (2016) examine its relationship with older Turkish tense constructions.

The copular layer has a separate history. Modern Turkish i- developed from Old Turkic er- through intermediate forms.

The generalising suffix -DIr is historically associated with tur-. Its origin differs from that of the past and evidential copular endings.

The origins of -DI and -mIş are still debated. Their historical functions can be described more securely than their precise beginnings.

A timeline of Turkish verb forms

1

8th century: Old Turkic, Orkhon inscriptions

No separate present-tense suffix; the aorist covered the present. Yorı- worked as an auxiliary of continuation. The -DI and -mIş contrast is already attested.

2

11th century: Karakhanid Turkish

Ability constructions show a shift from the older auxiliary u- towards forms involving bil-.

3

After the 13th century: Old Anatolian Turkish

Future-marking forms including -(y)IsAr and -(y)AcAk appear in the historical record.

4

15th century

The construction -(y)A yor(ur) is used for present-time reference. The future form -(y)AcAk begins replacing -(y)IsAr.

5

16th century

The older future marker -(y)IsAr becomes increasingly rare.

6

Today: Anatolian dialects

Forms such as -yoru and -yur preserve evidence of historical stages associated with the development from yor-ır towards -yor.

The dates show when these forms or changes were recorded, although they may have begun earlier.

Similar changes occurred in other Turkic languages. Johanson describes how combinations of verbs developed into progressive forms, while Ergönenç Akbaba (2013) examines a related development involving tur-.

As newer forms developed to describe ongoing actions, the older aorist kept its habitual and general uses and took on more modal meanings, such as promises and offers.

Where learners get stuck

Many learners first meet geniş zaman as "the simple present." Then they hear Her sabah 5 km koşuyorum and wonder why a daily habit takes -(I)yor. Turkish can express habits with both forms, and the aorist also covers general truths and promises, such as Yardım ederim ("I'll help"). Teaching materials do not always show this full range (Kanık, 2015; Akcaoğlu, 2025).

Students who come from English find seviyorum and severim especially hard. To many of them, seviyorum sounds like "I am loving." I explain it the other way round: severim is closer to "I like," and seviyorum is closer to "I love." Çay severim. "I like tea." Seni seviyorum. "I love you."

Another difficulty is choosing between -DI and -mIş. A learner may know that something happened and still be unsure which ending to use, because the choice depends partly on how the speaker came to know about it. Arslan, de Kok and Bastiaanse (2017) found that Turkish heritage speakers in their study had more difficulty with evidentiality than with time reference.

Vocabulary

Turkish term	Meaning and context
Zaman	Time or tense. In traditional grammar, this word may cover distinctions that linguistic analysis separates more carefully.
Görünüş	Aspect. How an event is viewed, such as an activity in progress or an event presented as a whole.
Kip	Mood. A familiar term from Turkish school grammar for forms associated with statements, wishes and conditions.
Kiplik	Modality. Meanings involving possibility or obligation.
Kanıtsallık	Evidentiality. How grammar indicates the source or basis of information.
Geniş zaman	The traditional name of the Turkish aorist. It covers habits and general statements, along with modal uses.
Ek-fiil	Copula. The grammatical element associated with i- that helps form compound verbs and descriptions such as hastaydı.
Birleşik zaman	Compound tense or compound verb form. Includes constructions such as geliyordu and gelmişti.
Duyulan geçmiş zaman	Literally, “heard past tense.” The traditional name for -mIş, which also has inference and new-information readings.
Görülen geçmiş zaman	Literally, “seen past tense.” The traditional name for -DI, although scholars disagree about its direct-evidence meaning.

---

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Q: Does Turkish have more tenses than English?

A: The answer depends on how tense is defined. Turkish combines time reference with meanings involving the course of an event and the speaker's attitude. Counting the traditional tense names does not give a direct comparison with English.

Q: Is -mIş always used for something the speaker did not witness?

A: No. It can express inference or newly discovered information. Scholars also disagree about how its aspectual meaning relates to evidentiality.

Q: Why can -yor describe a habit?

A: Turkish -(I)yor has a wider range than English present progressive. It can describe recurring activities, as in Her sabah 5 km koşuyorum. The aorist also expresses habits, but it has different generalising and modal uses.

Q: Why does Turkish have both geliyordu and geliyormuş?

A: Both begin with gel-iyor, which presents an ongoing event. The following ending changes the interpretation. -du places the event in the past, while -muş introduces an indirect-information reading.

Q: Is geldiydi incorrect Turkish?

A: It is a documented form with historical connections and regional use. Johanson and Csató analyse it as a mnemonic past, associated with recollection. It is uncommon in standard written Turkish.

Sources and further reading

• Akcaoğlu, C. (2025). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretiminde -(X)yor yüklemleştiricisinin görünüşü. Uluslararası Türkçe Öğretimi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 107–128. Record

• Aksu-Koç, A. (2016). The interface of evidentials and epistemics in Turkish: Perspectives from acquisition. In M. Güven, D. Akar, B. Öztürk & M. Kelepir (Eds.), Exploring the Turkish Linguistic Landscape (pp. 143–156). John Benjamins. Publisher

• Arslan, S., de Kok, D., & Bastiaanse, R. (2017). Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(3), 457–472. Article

• Ataman-Devrim, M., Soley, G., & Aksu-Koç, A. (2025). Children's understanding of source reliability and knowledge generalizability from grammatical cues: Evidence from Turkish. Journal of Child Language. Article

• DeLancey, S. (1997). Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology, 1, 33–52.

• Demirci, M., & Kırmıt, D. (2016). Tarihî Türk lehçelerinde ve Türkiye Türkçesinde geniş zaman üzerine bir inceleme. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 3(3), 51–85. Record

• Doğan, T. (2024). Oğuz grubu yazı dilleri ve ağızlarında yeterlik kategorisi. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı – Belleten, 78, 89–112. Full text

• Efendioğlu, S., & Solmaz, A. O. (2007). Birleşik zamanlar üzerine. Atatürk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, 35, 49–58. Full text

• Enmutlu, N. (1984). Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish aorist [MA thesis, Boğaziçi University]. Archive

• Erdoğan, Ö. (2026). Türkçede ek-fiil üzerine. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 15(2), 620–637. Full text

• Ergönenç Akbaba, D. (2013). Tur- yardımcı fiilinin Aral-Hazar grubu Türk lehçelerinde gramerleşmesi. In IV. Uluslararası Dünya Dili Türkçe Sempozyumu (Vol. 1, pp. 405–420). Uludağ Üniversitesi. Full text

• Fener, K. (2025). {-(y)IsAr} ekinin kökeni üzerine. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı – Belleten, 79, 63–82. Full text

• Gülmez, G. (2013). Le futur du turc et ses traductions en français. Synergies Turquie, 6, 13–27. Full text

• Hill, N. W. (2012). "Mirativity" does not exist: ḥdug in "Lhasa" Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology, 16(3), 389–433. Record

• Johanson, L. (2021). Turkic. Cambridge University Press. Chapters: Old intraterminals: Aorists, Postterminals, Terminals

• Johanson, L., & Csató, É. Á. (2021). On the Turkish mnemonic past, an evidential category. In Altaic and Chagatay Lectures: Studies in Honour of Éva Kincses-Nagy (pp. 255–262). PDF

• Kanık, M. (2015). The Turkish aorist and progressive: Present tense, future tense, or what? Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(1), 103–115. Full text

• Kappler, M., & Tsiplakou, S. (2018). Miş and miʃimu: An instance of language contact in Cyprus. In Linguistic Minorities in Turkey and Turkic-speaking Minorities in the Peripheries. PDF

• Ketrez, F. N. (2012). A Student Grammar of Turkish. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 9

• Meriçli, B. (2018). Indirect evidence in denotation & discourse: At best second-best. IULC Working Papers, 18(2). Article

• Mutlu, H. K. (2009). Balıkesir Yörük ağızlarında kullanılan şimdiki zaman biçimleri. Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı – Belleten, 2009/II, 71–83. Full text

• Şener, N. (2011). Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Turkish [PhD dissertation, University of Connecticut]. Full text

• Tarpomanova, E. (2024). The hows and whens, as well as whys, of evidentiality in Bulgarian and Albanian [Workshop handout, University of Basel]. PDF

• Üzüm, M. (2023). The development and functions of the inferential marker chog'i in Uzbek. Acta Linguistica Academica, 70(1), 109–138. Full text